If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

If my memory serves me right,,,,, I think the right to bear arms,,, was to enable common citizens to protect them selves from a tyrrenious( I made that word up) government,,,which if you were to follow that through logically you would come to the conclusion that we should be as well armed as our government.

Actually, as favorable as it was from the perspective of gun owners and wannabe owners, the most recent Supreme Court ruling said that it was entirely appropriate for government to impose "reasonable restrictions on firearms as long as those restrictions do not constitute an out right ban on rifles, shotguns or pistols. There will be lots of future litigation to define the meaning of "reasonable," but it is likely that a restriction, for example, on magazine size would be considered to be completely reasonable.

With respect to your rhetorical question concerning the clarity of "the right of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed", the lack of clarity concerns two parts of the amendment. First, what is the relationship of the need for a "well regulated militia" and the "right to bear arms" since both of these phrases are part of a single statement. Second, what in the minds of the authors was meant by the word "arms" and how might that term have evolved over time. The Supreme Court spent a lot of time trying to answer both of these questions and achieved very little consensus beyond having five justices agreeing that the DC statute went too far.

Interestingly, a government that restricted all weapons to a single shot might well garner the support of those justices that like to stick to the original meaning since there were no multi-shot weapons available at that time. Or are you one of those radicals that believe that the meaning of the Constitution might be subject to reinterpretation to reflect more modern technologies and developments.

Multi-shot gun owner regards,

Excuse me, but your attempt at baffling us with all your bullcrap is just amazing.

By your analysis, we can then expect this group that most consider to be somewhat erudite, will also ignore the developement of radio and TV, and revert back to print media only when considering anything to do with the first amendment. Heaven forbid bringing in the internet discovery.

While the founding fathers didn't have Nastradamus advising them, so they had total view into the 21st century, they did understand how to write a constitution proclaiming where the rights belonged in this new democracy.

Despite your attempts to divert the primary point of the England story, the concern I have is that the sheeple of this nation will follow along with the gun control crowd, and by the time they have realized their 2nd amendment rights HAVE been infringed upon, it will be too late. Far too many people in this nation are willing to have their freedoms legislated away, and like elections, they don't have to know a damned thing to drag everyone along with them into the gutter of socialism.

So you can play up how mentally insecure the dude in England was, but it doesn't dismiss the part about a couple of thugs wielding a crowbar broke into a home they had ZERO rights to be in. Trust me, should that happen in my home, neither of those two would have gotten away to become a witness against me.

You and others of the Gored Ox Syndrome, can believe you can continue to vote in socialists that want to take your guns away, but because you own guns, and of course you're one of the good guys, they won't come to your door. It's like the myth you believe that they won't raise taxes to a point it will even start getting into your pocket. Dream on. I envy your ability to buy into nirvana as you see it.

UB

When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

EdA, Next time I run into a guy with a Chemical or Nuclear weapon on the streets, I'll let you know. Don't pretend like you understand those things either.

The POINT of the Second is to grant the rights of citizens to protect and rebel against the government should the Government become to powerful and no longer represents the people (like England). Put yourself into the shoes of our Founding Fathers and try to understand WHY they did it, and you'll begin to understand HOW to apply it to your life.

It's illegal to kill another person. Sometimes there are mitigating circumstances; we are allowed to choose our own life over another. Those of us who have a Carry Permit, are law abiding citizens. 99.9969% of gun owners are responsible gun owners. So we should not allow people to bring their weapons out in public because an IRRESPONSIBLE, and NON-LAW ABIDING civilian chooses to ignore gun acquisition and safety laws?

So let me draw out a paralell. It's not perfect but the applicable concept is there:

Becuase SOME other guys are NOT responsible, and hit and abuse and rape women, we should make laws so not only can I not bring my girlfriend out into the public, but I have to keep her locked up and safe at home, or I'm not allowed to have one, even though I am a responsible Citizen?

How about an easier one: Baseball bats. I own a few, and I would probably only use it for it's intended purpose, to play baseball... but there are those who would carry it around and beat peopel up with it, and maybe even kill them...

So the solution to this is to make laws so I can't own a baseball bat because some civilian a$$hole abuses his baseball bat??

If I'm carrying a pistol, and over a 30 year period, I never have had to pull it out, am I a detriment to society? Who is more a detriment to Society, the guy who breaks the law, kills and rapes and murders, steals and does damage to others' property... or the guy who goes down to a gun shop, takes a gun safety class, takes a Carry Permit course, buys a gun, has to get a background check to get the gun, takes it home, and goes hunting with it, or if it's the right kind of gun, carries it around with him...???

EdA, Next time I run into a guy with a Chemical or Nuclear weapon on the streets, I'll let you know. Don't pretend like you understand those things either.

The POINT of the Second is to grant the rights of citizens to protect and rebel against the government should the Government become to powerful and no longer represents the people (like England). Put yourself into the shoes of our Founding Fathers and try to understand WHY they did it, and you'll begin to understand HOW to apply it to your life.

It's illegal to kill another person. Sometimes there are mitigating circumstances; we are allowed to choose our own life over another. Those of us who have a Carry Permit, are law abiding citizens. 99.9969% of gun owners are responsible gun owners. So we should not allow people to bring their weapons out in public because an IRRESPONSIBLE, and NON-LAW ABIDING civilian chooses to ignore gun acquisition and safety laws?

So let me draw out a paralell. It's not perfect but the applicable concept is there:

Becuase SOME other guys are NOT responsible, and hit and abuse and rape women, we should make laws so not only can I not bring my girlfriend out into the public, but I have to keep her locked up and safe at home, or I'm not allowed to have one, even though I am a responsible Citizen?

How about an easier one: Baseball bats. I own a few, and I would probably only use it for it's intended purpose, to play baseball... but there are those who would carry it around and beat peopel up with it, and maybe even kill them...

So the solution to this is to make laws so I can't own a baseball bat because some civilian a$$hole abuses his baseball bat??

If I'm carrying a pistol, and over a 30 year period, I never have had to pull it out, am I a detriment to society? Who is more a detriment to Society, the guy who breaks the law, kills and rapes and murders, steals and does damage to others' property... or the guy who goes down to a gun shop, takes a gun safety class, takes a Carry Permit course, buys a gun, has to get a background check to get the gun, takes it home, and goes hunting with it, or if it's the right kind of gun, carries it around with him...???

See what I'm saying?

To a few people on this board. Every thing you said will be lost on the fact that you forgot to run spell check. (backpasture, Joe )

.The POINT of the Second is to grant the rights of citizens to protect and rebel against the government should the Government become to powerful and no longer represents the people (like England). Put yourself into the shoes of our Founding Fathers and try to understand WHY they did it, and you'll begin to understand HOW to apply it to your life.

See what I'm saying?

How insightful of you to help me understand exactly what the framers of the Constitution were thinking when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

I enjoy posting thought provoking questions which will stimulate some interesting discussion about various topics without ever revealing my own stance. It interests me that some who visit here become so emotional about certain topics that they are unable to address the issue but rather launch into a diatribe which is not really on topic nor does it contribute to the discussion.

No one has suggested that it is not everyone's right to own weapons for personal protection and sporting use, I own both. While I do not possess a conceal to carry permit, in my state of residence, it is legal to carry a handgun from your premises to your vehicle and keep it there if it is out of sight without having a conceal to carry permit. When the time comes that I feel that my personal safety is at risk I will be in line for a conceal to carry permit.

The discussion is not about rape, baseball, or responsible gun ownership but about what type of weapons private citizens can and should be allowed to own.

It amuses me that the folks who get their panties knotted about the absolute nature of the 2nd Ammnendment (the "if we can't own nukes we shouldn't have automatic weapons either" crowd) are often the same folks who seem more-than-willing to let arsehats like Iran, North Korea and Libya aquire nukes lest we offend anyone or act like an "international bully" to prevent it. I'd much rather have Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or Jimmy Buffet have some nukes parked in their backyard than India, Pakistan and North Korea.

It amuses me that the folks who get their panties knotted about the absolute nature of the 2nd Ammnendment (the "if we can't own nukes we shouldn't have automatic weapons either" crowd) are often the same folks who seem more-than-willing to let arsehats like Iran, North Korea and Libya aquire nukes lest we offend anyone or act like an "international bully" to prevent it.

It amuses me that the folks who get their panties knotted about the absolute nature of the 2nd Ammnendment (the "if we can't own nukes we shouldn't have automatic weapons either" crowd) are often the same folks who seem more-than-willing to let arsehats like Iran, North Korea and Libya aquire nukes lest we offend anyone or act like an "international bully" to prevent it. I'd much rather have Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or Jimmy Buffet have some nukes parked in their backyard than India, Pakistan and North Korea.

Hew,

How you doing?

I'll ask you the same question I've asked before to others:

How do you legally stop a nation-state from aquiring nuclear weapons?

Too late about India, Pakistan and North Korea but I'd be interested in hearing your plans for Iran and Venezuela.